get_system_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'Get' does imply a non-mutating read, which is the key behavioral fact here. However, it says nothing about connection/permission requirements, error behavior when no session is active, or whether values are live vs cached — acceptable for a trivial zero-arg read, but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every element (the listed fields) adds information. There is no padding or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully compensates by naming the returned values, and with zero parameters there is little else an agent needs. It stops short of stating anything about session state or failure conditions, leaving a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline rule a 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The listed output fields are informative but are not parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb 'Get' plus a clearly bounded resource, and it enumerates the exact fields returned (model, version, session name, resolution), which separates it from status getters like get_switcher_state or get_audio_state. It never explicitly names a sibling to avoid, but the resource is unique enough that no reasonable agent would confuse them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Usage is only inferable from the tool name itself, so an agent gets no explicit routing signal.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.